The K.F. Stone Weekly

Clueless

   Seems like hardly a news cycle goes by without Mitt Romney putting his foot in his mouth, thus proving to the 99% who weren't born into wealth and privilege, that he is one clueless dude.  You've got to hand it to the former Massachusetts governor; in his inimitable stiff-as-a-board way, he is the reincarnation of Thurston Howell III, the clueless millionaire of Gilligan's Island.  Gilligan fans will recall that millionaire Howell (Jim Backus) was so rich that he took tens of thousands of dollars and innumerable changes of clothing for what was supposed to have been "a three hour tour."

   Unlike the fictional Thurston Howell III however, Willard Mitt Romney is both real and running for President of the United States.  Every time Romney puts a bespoke John Lobb into his silver spoon fed mouth, a phalanx of political pundits utter prayers of thanksgiving.  Indeed, Juvenal, the father of all satirists, was undoubtedly correct when, nearly 2,000 years ago he wrote "In times like these, it is difficult not to write satire."

    It would seem that the late George Romney's greatest bequest to his son (besides a great head of hair) was a penchant for misstatement.  Seasoned political junkies may recall that the elder Romney's 1968 presidential aspirations were dealt a crushing blow when he told a Detroit television reporter "When I came back from Vietnam [in November 1965] I'd just had the greatest brainwashing anyone can get . . ." Within a week of making what was likely an off-the-cuff remark, George Romney became the fodder for television talk show hosts; his presidential aspirations began swirling around the political toilet bowl.

   Like his father, Mitt Romney can't go off-book without putting his foot in his mouth. But unlike George, who never spoke about his personal economic status, Mitt has a long record of bringing up his wealth -- of putting his foot in his mouth and coming off as a clueless dilettante. A couple of the former Massachusetts governor's more memorable gaffes include:

• Telling an AP reporter "I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners."
• Informing members of the Detroit Economic Club that his wife drives ". . . a couple of Cadillacs."
• Letting CNN's Soledad O'Brien know that "I'm not concerned about the very poor.  We have a safety net there."
• Saying that the speakers fees he earned during the previous year ($374,000) did not "amount to much."
• Telling hecklers at the Iowa State Fair that "Corporations are people, my friend . . . . Of course they are.  Everything corporations earn also goes to people."
  

     And now Romney's latest venture into the realm of fatuous feasting.  The other day, while speaking at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, Romney had some simple advice to students who wanted to start their own business: simply borrow the money from their  parents.  During his speech Romney pointed to sandwich chain Jimmy John’s, in which owner Jimmy John Liautaud borrowed $20,000 from his father (in return for 48% of the business) to start the shop. "We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it. Take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business."

 

   More than one Republican strategist has averred that perhaps Mitt Romney is "a bit tone-deaf" and "should stick to his script."

  A "bit" tone-deaf? 

  How about "More mechanical than Robby the Robot?"  Or just plain "Certifiably clueless?"

   And what's worse, when Romney responds to those who critique his seeming vacuity, he comes off sounding even more out-of-touch.  Back in January, as an example, Romney came under withering criticism for his record at Bain Capital -- in which he and his fellow corporate raiders were responsible for tens of thousands of people losing their jobs.  So how did the former Massachusetts governor respond?  By calling such criticism un-American “class warfare” that is simply motivated by “envy.”  Romney added that our broken economy — one that is only working for the wealthy few right now — should not even be discussed in public, saying discussions of income inequality were only fit for “quiet rooms.”  

 

   Again, Romney hasn't a clue.  Americans have nothing against wealth.  We don't envy the rich. For most people, the rich are like the characters in a fairy tale: fascinating, remote and mostly unreal.  Heck, if there's one constant in American history, it's our fascination with the lives of the rich and famous; what they drive, where they live and how they spend.  But it's celebrities, not potential Presidents and First Ladies whose lives and wealth fascinate us.  When it comes to those who seek our votes, we want to know that they can relate to real lives and challenges, real dreams, fears and aspirations.  On that score -- and by his own words -- Mitt Romney hasn't a clue.

   Just the other day, House Speaker John Boehner was asked by CNN's Candy Crowley whether he thought Mitt Romney's wealth would present him a "hill to climb" in tough economic times.  "No," the speaker responded, "The American people don't want to vote for a loser.  They don't want to vote for someone that hasn't been successful.  I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to show the American people that they too, can succeed."  While I certainly agree with Speaker Boehner that the American people "don't want to vote for someone that hasn't been successful," I wonder who in the world he's comparing Governor Romney to, and what his definition of success is. 

   By definition, anyone and everyone who runs for president is a success.  But success is not necessarily confined only to that which is taxable.  When Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States, he was, without question, one of the most successful men in the world.  And yet at the time, his net worth likely amounted to far less than a week's unearned income -- $384,615.00 -- for the Romneys.  Today, the President and Secretary Clinton are multi-millionaires.  By the same token, by the time he was elected President, Barack Obama was a millionaire; a man who had risen from the middle class by dint of his literary skill.  Because they are products of the middle class, both Clinton and Obama can easily relate to the lives and aspirations of most people.

   This is not to suggest that those who are either born to wealth --  (West Virginia Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, or Colorado Representative Jared Polis) or those who have amassed a fortune on their own (Cal. Rep. Darryl Issa, Wisc. Senator Herb Kohl or former Rep. Alan Grayson) are incapable of relating to people who are not "to the manor born."  Most people succeed in politics precisely because they relate well to people; because voters sense that -- to paraphrase Bill Clinton -- they "feel our pain."  With Mitt Romney, however, one wonders whether he has a clue; whether he understands that while the majority of Americans don't begrudge him being wealthy, we do wish he'd show sensitivity to the fact that most people aren't.

   Years ago, comedian Steve Martin did a Saturday Night Live sketch that puts Mitt Romney's cluelessness into satiric perspective:

   You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes!  You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! You say, 'Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?'  Well, I'll tell 'ya: first, get a million dollars . . ."

   Or as Mitt Romney might say, "You can always borrow it from your parents . . ."

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Whale of Two Pities

   So you tell me: who's more dangerous, divisive and delusional -- CNN contributor Hilary Rosen or U.S. Representative Allen West?  Based on their past declarations and history -- plus a judicious Google search -- I'd have to say Allen West by about twelve thousand furlongs.  For while Rosen's comment about Ann Romney (" . . . she's never worked a day in her life . . .") has become the political flashpoint of the week,  Representative West's statement that " . . . there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party" sounds and feels like the rebirth of McCarthyism.  I don't know about you, but when it comes to being dangerous, divisive and delusional, Rep. West wins this one hands down.

  When asked to recant and apologize for her comment, Ms. Rosen issued a statement in which she said, "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance." Ms. Rosen (who herself has raised two children) also published a piece in The Huffington Post, which said in part, ". . . Let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today."

   For those who at this point are crying out "But that's no apology!" guess again.  Even former first lady Barbara Bush commended Rosen's mea culpa, telling people ". . . forget it. Life is good. Women who stay home are wonderful, women who go to work are wonderful. Whatever." At a time when all sides of the media love playing "Gotcha!" the response to Hillary Rosen's verbal gaffe is far from unique. That she has been taken to the woodshed by both the stalwarts of the Right and members of her own party is hardly surprising.  Obama campaign chair David Axelrod told CNN's John King that Rosen's comments were "unfortunate," but quickly reminded him that ". . . she works for you (CNN), not for us . . ."

   

   While everyone in America now knows that Hilary Rosen accused Ann Romney of "never having worked a day in her life," few realize that this was only the first part of her statement.  For beginning with the very next sentence, Rosen added, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future."  In checking out numerous websites -- right, center and left -- dealing with the Rosen/Romney scrap, it is amazing how many people have felt the need to mention that Hilary Rosen is a lesbian, but that "this has nothing to do with how I feel about what she said."  Well, if it has "nothing to do with . . . what she said," why bring it up in the first place?  

   Lost in the current imbroglio is the fact that there is still more than a germ of truth in what Hilary Rosen said; people like Ann Romney cannot truly understand just how difficult it is for two-wage earner families to make ends meet.  For most American families raising children is something one does after eight -- or ten, or twelve -- hours of work.  Staying home with a sick child can mean a loss of income; taking time off to give birth can mean a loss of employment.

   Then there's Alan West.

 

   Where Hilary Rosen quickly gave in to demands that she apologize to both Ann Romney and the women of America, Allen West has remained unbowed, unapologetic and defiant; he truly believes that of the 193 Democrats in the House, more than 40% are members of the Communist Party.  When asked to comment on West's assertion, Libero Della Piana, a vice-chair of the Communist Party said, "I think it's an absurd way to cast a shadow over his colleagues. It's kind of a sad ploy."

   While it's a pity that Hilary Rosen's remark threw a rhetorical monkey wrench into an otherwise serious, much-needed political debate, it is an even greater pity that Rep. West should attempt to recycle and revive one of the darkest, most gruesome episodes in American history.  To be certain, there are some mighty big differences between the America of Martin Dies, Joe McCarthy, J. Parnell Thomas, and the John Birch Society than that of Allen West, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and the Koch brothers.  Back then, people got their news from journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Howard K. Smith and Eric Severeid; today we've got a thousand-and-one cable entertainers, few of whom qualify for the title "newsman." In the McCarthy era, nearly 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union; today the percentage is not quite 12%.  Back in the day, the "international conspiracy" was made up of Jews, unions, Zionists, even plutocratic bankers, all puppets dangling on strings manipulated by Stalinist agents in Moscow, Hollywood, the Lower East Side and certain segments of Capitol Hill.  Today, all that has changed; the Soviet Union no longer exists, and thus can no longer act as puppet master.

   Or does it? Just three weeks ago Mitt Romney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that " . . . Russia is, without question, our biggest geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors."

 

   Representative West, who has been suggested as an "ideal running mate" for  Romney, would appear to agree with the former Massachusetts governor; Russia is still the enemy, Communism still the greatest source of evil. 

   West is of course well-known for making outrageous comments:

• “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party."
• [Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is] "Vile, unprofessional and despicable . . . not a lady."
• “I am sick and tired of this class warfare, this Marxist demagogic rhetoric that is coming from the president of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a low-level socialist agitator.”
• Speaking of Congressional Democrats: “Take your message of equality of achievement…You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

   From where I sit, Allen West, like Joseph McCarthy, is divisive, delusional, and just plain dangerous.  Like McCarthy, he says things he knows are not true in order to garner public attention; in order to separate himself from the nameless pack.  Like McCarthy he has identified a segment of the American public that is beset with fear, loathing and resentment -- and announced that he can be counted on to be their champion.  And like McCarthy he is a master of political misdirection -- of creating conspiracies out of thin air.

   Hilary Rosen has apologized for her gaffe; her political compass will lead her back to a proper path. 

   Allen West, on the other hand, is a man without a compass . . . or a conscience. 
  

   It's a whale of a pity.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

If a Tree Falls in the Forest . . .

   I would imagine that at one time or another, most of us have pondered that eternal question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?  Hard as it may be to believe, that question has, over the years, attracted the attention of some pretty serious thinkers -- philosophers, physicists and garden-variety ponderers. 

   Jim Baggot, a well-respected British professor and author of, among other works, The Quantum Story: A History in Forty Moments, opined that "The answer depends on how we choose to interpret the use of the word ‘sound’. If by sound we mean compressions and rarefactions in the air which result from the physical disturbances caused by the falling tree and which propagate through the air with audio frequencies, then we might not hesitate to answer in the affirmative." 

   I guess some folks just can't resist the temptation to "complexify" where others would see the need to simplify.  In all fairness to professor Baggot, he is truly a marvelous writer and teacher; one endowed with sufficient genius to take things which are inherently complex and esoteric -- like quantum physics and the nature of reality -- and make them eminently understandable.  It takes a lot of brains to simplify that which is complex . . .

   On the opposite end of the spectrum are the folks who take things which are inherently simple and somehow make them seem as complex or esoteric as quantum physics.  From time to time, President Obama, I am sorry to say, falls into this category.

   Case in point, his recent use of the term social Darwinism.

   The other day, the president was speaking about the House Republican budget plan -- the one Governor Romney termed "marvelous."  The plan would save millionaires a minimum of $150,000 a year in taxes while gutting Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, transportation, child nutrition, college aid and almost everything else average and lower-income Americans depend on.  Where former Labor Secretary Robert Reich attacked the plan -- created by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan -- in rather simple terms, calling it ". . . the most radical reverse-Robin Hood proposal propounded by any political party in modern America," the president took the "complexifier's" path, stating, "Disguised as deficit reduction . . . it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.  It is thinly veiled social Darwinism."

   While what President Obama said hits the nail on the head -- the Ryan plan does smack of "social Darwinism" -- it is a statement which sadly, very few people will understand.  Case in point, the arch-conservative who just the other day demanded that I explain to her, "How in the hell can Obama accuse Governor Romney of being a Socialist?"  I tried to explain that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Socialism, and next to nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution -- which in any event, a huge number of Americans -- herself included -- don't subscribe to.

   Indeed, as correct and trenchant as his assessment of the Ryan Plan may be, President Obama really should avoid using a term like "social Darwinism," which few people have ever heard of.  "Social Darwinism" is a 19th concept that originates with sociologist William Graham Sumner.  Sumner (1840-1910), who taught social and political science at Yale for nearly 40 years, argued that laissez-faire economics is justified by the theories of Charles Darwin.  In numerous essays, he argued for near-absolute individual liberty and staunchly opposed all forms of business regulation, labor unions and public welfare.  Accused by his critics of being hard-hearted, Sumner wrote, "The sociologist is often asked if he wants to kill off certain classes of troublesome and bewildered persons. No such interference follows from any sound sociological doctrine, but it is allowed to infer, as to a great many persons and classes, that it would have been better for society and would have involved no pain to them, if they had never been born."  

   Sumner -- like modern day Republicans -- treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards.  He saw the free market as a moral arbiter, not merely a tool for creating wealth.  This attitude was in perfect step with America's Calvinist tradition, which from the time of the Pilgrims understood wealth to be a tangible sign of Divine approval, and poverty an obvious sign of Divine rejection. Those who  received their college educations in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, likely learned about this from reading the late Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought.

   Greg Mankiw, one of Mitt Romney's key economic advisors put the Republican allegiance to social Darwinism (even if not specifically called that) rather starkly when he wrote, "People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is rightfully his."

   As much as conservative writers like David Brooks, Geoffrey Norman and the above-referenced Greg Mankiw might disparage Barack Obama for "smearing" them with the term "social Darwinism," the president was speaking the truth.  Unfortunately, truth -- like the tree which falls in the forest without benefit of a set of ears -- may make a sound, but if it comes wrapped in words or phrases that the majority does not understand, can  be neither appreciated nor apprehended.  

  If I could give the president and his campaign advisors a bit of advice, it would be this: please, ladies and gentlemen, do a better, less complex job of explaining.  The fewer the syllables, the less the academic terminology -- regardless of how correct it is -- the greater the chance you have that the voting public will conclude that indeed, you know what you're talking about. 

   It's just that simple. 

  As simple as a tree falling in the forest.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

  

The Oil of Politics

  Of all the meaty issues that are going to be served up on the presidential election platter -- health care, Iran, deficits, the future of Social Security, Medicare, immigration, the future of America to name but a few -- it is highly likely that the price of gas will be that platter's main course.  For unlike any other issue, this one affects our lives not in the abstract, but in capital letters; not once a month, but nearly every day.  And, where one might, through an act of will or self-preservation, hide just about any other issue under the mental rug, the price we pay for a gallon of gas is simply too central, too overwhelming, to be separated from our daily concerns.

   As central a focus as the price of gas-at-the-pump is going to be, it is an issue which candidates will address with fatuous finger-pointing, superficial slogans and brainless bromides where tachlis -- Yiddish for "seriousness of purpose" -- should reign supreme.  Moreover, most every challenger -- whether running for President, Senate or House of Representatives, will espouse the same simple-minded solution for this utterly complex challenge: "Vote for me! I will lower gas to $2.50 a gallon!" "Vote for me!  I will drill everywhere from Butte, Montana to the Beaufort Sea"  "Vote for Me! I will free America from its dependence on Arab oil!"

   Sorry fans, but it ain't gonna happen.  Candidates who suggest that utter complexity can be parsed through sheer simplicity are charlatans; voters who buy into that simplicity are to be pitied.

   And so, in keeping with the old adage "To be forewarned is to be forearmed," we present a little quiz about oil, energy independence and the price of gas . . .

   1. The world's largest producer of oil is:

       A. Saudi Arabia

       B. Iran

       C. United States

       D. Russia

       E. China

   The correct answer is D, Russia. The next four, in order of production output are Saudi Arabia, United States, Iran and China.

   2. The largest single foreign source of American oil comes from:

       A. Mexico

       B. Venezuela

       C. Saudi Arabia

       D. Nigeria      

       E. Canada

   The correct answer is E Canada.  In order of quantity imported, ranging from most to least, America gets its oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria.  

   3. True or False: During Barack Obama's first three years in office, America's rate of oil production and exploration fell dramatically.

        False: According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), during the last 3 years of the George W. Bush administration (2006-2008), America produced 1.78 billion barrels of oil.  During the first three years of the Obama administration (2009-2011), America produced 2 billion barrels of oil, a nearly 13% increase. 

   4. True or False: The best way to lower the price of gas at the pump is to drill for more oil here in America.

       False.  A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, we'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline.

   5. True or False: If America could reduce its oil imports to zero, we could insulate ourselves from the global market and set our own prices.

        False.  It is virtually impossible to be insulated from the global market -- even if we do not import a single barrel.  Gasoline prices will always be determined by world petroleum prices.  The only way to keep prices significantly lower than the world market would be to institute price controls, which President Richard Nixon did in March 1973.  (In 1973 Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act which created a two-tier system of price controls on domestic oil. The price of “old” domestic oil was frozen, but “new” domestic oil was decontrolled.  These controls were phased out by the end of the Carter Administration.)

  There is no single reason why gas prices rise or fall.  Having said this, it must be admitted that the price of gas at the pump does have more to do with the petroleum futures' market than with either the production or consumption of gasoline.  And what frequently "fuels" the petroleum futures' market is a combination of worry, fear and uncertainty about the future.  When, as an example, there is a rise in bellicose rhetoric vis-à-vis Iran ("If elected, Iran better watch out!" or "If you persist in putting more economic sanctions on us, we'll retaliate by shutting down the Straits of Hormuz!") speculators drive up the price per barrel against the possibility of what might happen in the future.  Interestingly, even if Iran finds itself  able to sell only half the oil due as it did prior to sanctions, if the price per barrel will increase 30% or 40% -- which it could well do -- their income won't be all that much less.  In other words, it would be wise for politicians to lay off the bellicose blather.

   Is the market really that sensitive to rumor and possibility? Absolutely.  Just listen to any day's closing market report on CNN, MSNBC or the BBC, and you will hear analysts explaining what, in their opinion, led the Dow Jones led to advance or decline.  Uncertainty about the Greeks' ability to handle their debt, for example will send the market down.  If, however, the next day the EU and the IMF even hint at providing Athens with, say,  a $100 billion loan, the market will go up.  It's just that sensitive.

   So too with energy.

   America's and the world's energy future is a highly complex issue.  The Department of Energy's "International Energy Outlook" anticipates that world oil consumption will increase from 85.7 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2008 to 112.2 mbpd in 2035.  And the largest increase in consumption is not going to be taking place in the United States, but rather in emerging economies in Africa and Asia.  This means that America's energy needs are going to increasingly come from unconventional sources like oil sands, extra-heavy oil, biofuels, coal-to-liquids, natural-gas-to-liquids and shale oil -- all of which we have (at least potentially) in abundance, and all of which come with serious ecological consequences.

   As noted above, complex problems require far more than simple slogans or birdbrained bromides. "Vote for me!" is obviously not a serious solution to a complex problem. Any candidate who suggests that simply doing "X" or "Y" will solve America's -- and the world's -- looming energy crisis is full of hot air. 

    And the last time I looked, hot air -- although existing in great abundance -- isn't a great source of energy.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

"The Journey, Not the Arrival Matters"

   I wish I had a dollar for every Tom, Dick and Mary who told me -- with utter certainty -- that "President Obama is no friend of Israel," or that "Obama has thrown Israel under the bus."  If I did have that dollar-per-head, I would have easily more than enough gelt to purchase a couple of hundred trees through the Jewish National Fund.  For indeed, there are easily that many people who have bought into the canard that not only is Barack Obama bad for the State of Israel, he's "obviously and transparently on the side of the Palestinians."  

   In the immortal words of Mr. Pitt: "Stuff and nonsense!"

  Whenever I challenge a person, asking "what is the basis for your belief that President Obama is anti-Israel?" about the only tangible response I get is "Well, he has yet to visit Israel."  Frequently, this comment will be coupled with statements like: "Mitt Romney said that as president, his first trip abroad would be to Israel," or "When he was a candidate, Rick Perry said that one of his first trips would be to Israel."

   After hearing this "If Obama truly cared about Israel he would get his fanny there ASAP," dig more times than I care to count, I decided to do some heavy duty research on presidential travel over the past half century.  From John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, America has had ten presidents.  Of these, five -- Kennedy, Johnson, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- traveled first to Canada; three -- Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush -- made their first presidential trips Mexico.

   On June 16, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president to visit Israel. This particular foreign trip, which had begun a week earlier, included prior stops in Austria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and concluded with one-day visits to Jordan and Portugal.  During his 24-hours in Jerusalem, Nixon met with then-President Ephraim Katzir and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  (During his 6+ years in the White House, Nixon took 11 trips abroad; his visit to Israel came during his 9th trip.)

   Presidents Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush never visited Israel. President Carter made two trips to Israel, in December 1977 and March 1979.  To date, Bill Clinton has the all-time record for visits by an American president; during his eight years in the White House, he went no less than four times.  During his eight years in the White House, Clinton made 53 separate trips abroad, during which time he made 133 different stops. His initial journey to Israel -- October 27-28, 1994 -- came during his sixth trip abroad, slightly less than 22 months after having taken the oath of office.

   By comparison, President George W. Bush, who was inaugurated in January 2001, did not make his first visit to the Jewish State for more than seven years -- not until January 9, 2008. During his eight years in the White House, W took forty-six trips abroad, encompassing 140 stops.  This initial journey to Israel came on the 109th stop of his 39th foreign trip.  In doing my research, I did not find a single instance of anyone questioning George W. Bush's Israeli bona fides because he had yet to go to Jerusalem. 

   And yet, there are all those who see President Obama's not having visited Israel -- and he's only been in office for 38 months -- as somehow being proof that he is against the Jewish State.  Up until today -- when the president is in Korea for the "Nuclear Security Summit," President Obama has made 21 trips abroad, incorporating 44 separate stops.  And while he has been repeatedly pilloried for "all his visits to Arab countries," it is fascinating to note that during his first 38 months in office, he has spent precisely one day in Egypt and one day in Saudi Arabia.  But to listen to his detractors, one might conclude that he has spent so much time kowtowing to King Abdullah and the House of Saud that he has his own personal suite of rooms at the Tuwayq Palace in Riyadh.

  So far as the "If elected, my first foreign trip will be to Israel" crowd goes, they are engaging in nothing more than campaign rhetoric meant to shore up as many Jewish votes as possible.  As rhetoric, the promise is understandable; as policy, it is neither intelligent nor wise.  

   Why?

   An analogy might help: imagine that it's the night before the Superbowl, and you are your team's star quarterback.  You go out to dinner and low and behold, who do you see but your opposite number and several members of his team -- dining with the fellow who's going to be refereeing tomorrow's game!  Naturally, you wonder about how in the world that ref can be impartial or neutral; he's so chummy with the other team.  To announce up front that one's first presidential visit will be to Jerusalem is tantamount to having drinks and dinner with one team the night before the big game.  Any overture emanating from that administration; any call for talks between Israelis and Palestinians would likely fail before they even commenced; the latter would see the deck being stacked against them -- or to continue in terms of our analogy, to suspect that the coin toss is going to be rigged in favor of the opposition.

   Any foreign policy team that would advise a candidate to announce that if elected, his first foreign trip will be to Israel -- rather than Canada, Mexico, England or Belgium as the last 10 presidents have done -- is not worthy of their paychecks. They have staked their candidate to a promise he'd be smart not to keep -- if he's truly concerned about seeking a two-state solution.

   The fact that President Obama has yet to touch down at Ben Gurion Airport will continue to provide all the "proof" many need to back up their belief that he is not a friend to Israel.  Countering this falsity is not easy, for many Americans have suspected Barack Obama of anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Israel tendencies from the day he first won the Democratic nomination -- without a scintilla of substantiation.  George W. Bush did not arrive in Jerusalem until he had nearly completed two terms, and yet -- as noted above -- nobody raised a peep, no one thought to inquire if he -- who entertained Saudi princes at his ranch and was photographed kissing them -- was a friend or foe of the Jewish State. 

   Yes, yes, I know, politics is not fair.  And to further prove it, one of these days, Barack Obama will arrive at Ben Gurion.  And at that time, the same people who are damning him for not having been there before, will accuse him of pandering to the American Jewish community -- even if he is not running for reelection.

    Although Barack Obama has yet to arrive in Jerusalem his journey in getting there is both sound and sincere. 

   And, as the late, great British political theorist/author/civil servant Leonard Woolf (Virginia's husband) once noted, "The journey, not the arrival matters . . ."     

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Canvas of Words -- A Portrait of Actions

   Without question the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on the progress and efficacy of President Obama’s policies, versus his challenger’s promises and rhetoric. As well it should be.  The election will, to a great extent, turn on how voters answer several critical questions, chief among them being:

• Which candidate – and party – seems to have the best handle on how to create jobs in the short-run while retooling the American economy for the future?
• Which candidate -- and party – appears to best understand and relate to the needs and aspirations of America’s vast middle class?
• Which candidate – and party – will be best able to keep America safe from external threats, support our allies and keep our enemies in check?

   The questions are posed in a conditional sense, for one simply never knows which campaign promises will become policy. In the world of bare-knuckled political partisanship, there are far too many variables at play; translating rhetoric into reality is a Herculean task.  For the challenger in a presidential race, there is a canvas of words; for the incumbent, there is a portrait of action. While campaigning is, generally speaking, akin to playing a game of "Texas Hold-Um," governing is far more intricate -- like a game of chess. As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once sagely noted, “We campaign in poetry but govern in prose.”  Or to put it a bit more prosaically, “actions speak louder than words.” 

   President Obama’s well-received speech before the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference a week ago Sunday was a unique convergence of poetry and prose – of words describing actions.  In his soaring 33-minute address, he noted that “. . . over the next several days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But,” he continued, “As you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds.”

    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.  The close relationship between the Obama Administration and Israel is far more than a canvas of words; it is a portrait of action.  Since entering office in January 2009, President Obama has increased security funding for Israel three times; it is now at its highest level in history.  He has provided critical funds for the “Iron Dome” missile defense system which, he told Policy Conference attendees, “has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools . . .” The president further detailed how “When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them.”

  The president reminded the gathering how in September 2011, he “. . . stood before the United Nations General Assembly and reaffirmed that any lasting peace must acknowledge the fundamental legitimacy of Israel and its security concerns.  No American President,” he noted “has made such a clear statement about our support for Israel at the United Nations at such a difficult time. People usually give those speeches before audiences like this one -- not before the General Assembly.” The president drew laughter when he noted, “And I must say, there was not a lot of applause.”

   And yet, despite a welter of actions that mark this president and his administration as  true and unhesitating friends of Israel – of “having Israel’s back” -- there are many who continue accusing him of having “Thrown Israel under the bus,” and wondering aloud “If he’s such a great friend of Israel, why hasn’t he been there yet?” (It should be noted that President George W. Bush, did not make his first visit to Israel until January 9. 2008 – near the end of his second term, and the 39th of his 46 presidential trips abroad.  Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush never visited the Jewish State.  President Bill Clinton, who visited Israel on four separate occasions, paid his first official visit on October 26, 1994, 21 months after taking office.) 

   There are so many statements and claims made by the president’s opponents which fly in the face of reality. And while it may be true that “all’s fair in love and war,” America’s relationship with Israel, the president noted in his AIPAC address, “is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics.”

   The one area where President Obama and his surrogates may well be faulted is in not detailing both clearly and precisely just how many positive actions they have undertaken on behalf of our friend and ally.  “If you want to know where my heart lies,” the president told AIPAC, “look no further than what I have done – to stand up for Israel.” 

The president’s opponents may have claim to a canvas of words, but he has a portrait – a portrait of tangible deeds.

 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

When Good News is No News

  On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy added 243,000 jobs in January, which dropped the unemployment rate to 8.3% -- the lowest jobless rate since January 2009, the month Barak Obama took the oath of office.  Although certainly slower and weaker than the president and millions of un- and underemployed Americans would wish, there is no question but that the American economy is improving.  Indeed, over the past year, the economy has added nearly 2 million non-government  jobs; over the past 23 months that figure is 3.7 million. jobs

This represents the best 12 months in at least 5 years.  Buoyed by the good news, the Dow rose by slightly more than 200 points, ending the week at 12,862.23 -- a 77.4% rise since Barack Obama took the oath of office slightly more than 3 years ago.

 

  According to a broad array of data, the economy has been gaining strength for almost six months, offering some reason for hope that the effects of the deep financial crisis are finally starting to fade. Still, the economy will need several more years of strong job growth to return to anything resembling full health. And although many forecasters are growing more hopeful about this year, several factors — including Europe’s financial troubles and the turmoil in Iran — could change the situation quickly.  As such, in speaking about the economy this past Friday, the president essentially laid out the theme that will be at the center of his re-election campaign, reminding voters how bad an economy he inherited and hailing recent progress while being careful to add that there is still a long way to go. "The economy is growing stronger; the recovery is speeding up," the president said.  But he then quickly conceded: "These numbers will go up and down in the coming months."  

   In other words, despite the much-needed good news, the president neither crowed nor took a rhetorical victory lap.  He knows that while the path we're on is a good and solid one, it nonetheless contains many ruts, jags and potholes. Sounds pretty realistic to me; hopeful and cautiously optimistic.  There is much to be both proud and hopeful about:

• After more than a decade of job losses, American manufacturing has been creating jobs since December 2009.
• The American auto industry is back. GM is again No. 1 in the world; auto manufacturers are expected to add more than 100,000 new jobs in the next 2 years.
• American oil production is at its highest level in more than 8 years.
  

   To listen to the none-too-loyal opposition, none of the above is true; things are getting worse. For them, there is no good news. Or, to put it another way, "good news is no news." Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference, like many of his colleagues, essentially ignored the positive economic news. “Today is an indication of another failure of this president’s policies — 36 months in a row of 8 percent-plus unemployment,” he said. Speaker John Boehner said, "The American people are still asking,  'Where are the jobs?'"

According to Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, President Obama and his administration, far from leading the economy down the road to recovery, are lost at sea clinging to a deflated life raft.  According to them, the newest Labor Department figures are meaningless at best, suspect at worst. (Limbaugh and Hannaty both argued "The jobs report is corrupt."  Hannaty said the report ". . . has phony numbers all around it.")  Such a position places President Obama's potential challengers -- especially Gov. Romney -- in the position of ignoring statistical evidence and sounding the tocsin of angry, conspiratorial negativity . . . never a great strategy in a presidential campaign.  It also leaves voters wondering whether these guys are actually pulling for the economy to remain in the tank -- at least until they can take over.  If so, this is, to my way of thinking, ideological treason.

  Speaking at a campaign stop in Sparks, Nevada just a few hours before that state's caucus gatherings, Romney said, “This recovery has been slower than it should have been. People have been suffering for longer than they should have had to suffer. Will it get better? I think it’ll get better,” he added. “But this president has not helped the process. He’s hurt it.”  And despite making these comments in Nevada -- the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation (slightly above 13%), Romney's only "cure for what ails us" is -- like virtually every other Republican in America -- lower taxes and less regulation.  From day one, Romney has been proclaiming that as a businessman -- one who has "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" -- he "knows what it takes" to get America out of its economic doldrums.

  There is ample evidence that having "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" is no guarantee of succeeding in government. Take the last American president to come from the ranks of business: Hoover Hoover.  Need one say more?  Or Florida's current Governor, Rick Scott. Despite having experienced enough success in the private sector to pay for a campaign out of his own pocket, he has been an utter disaster as governor; running a for-profit business is one heck of a lot different than running a state.  Even Scott's fellow Republicans are turning against him.  (It should be noted that despite spending $73 million of his own money, Scott only managed to defeat Democrat Alex Sink by a razor-thin margin of 48.87%-47.72%).  One can also site the failed governorships of Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and John Corzine (D-NJ), two highly successful, fabulously wealthy men, which were more notable for their failures than successes.  The short and sweet of it is that running a business and running a government are two very different enterprises.  

  It is in no way surprising that Mitt Romney, a man who made an unfathomable fortune in the private sector, should ask us to place our faith in the free market.  After all, from his perspective -- and that of most of his Republican colleagues -- this is whence all economic health and success emanates.  Their argument has long been that by lowering taxes for the wealthy, by cutting -- if not eliminating -- the tax on capital gains, it will permit business owners to expand their enterprises, thus increasing employment and thus strengthening the economy.  Over the past generation, this argument has gone by the name "supply-side" economics.  There is, I am sorry to say, no historic evidence for its ever having succeeded.  In order for "supply-side" to work, there must be a "demand-side" -- consumers -- who have the cash to buy what the wealthy are supplying.   

  One need not agree with "the free market is the salvation of us all" philosophy to understand how it could be quite appealing to many -- especially those who have been taught that "government is the problem, not the solution."  What is terribly difficult to comprehend however, is how people can take good news and spin it into being no news at all.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

Coupon Clippers of the World Unite!

   Last Wednesday in my "All Politics All the Time" course at Florida International University, we spent a few minutes discussing Mitt Romney's tax return, which he had released just the day before.  Not surprisingly, most of students were well versed on how much

            Romney's Home in Deer Valley, UT

Governor Romney earned per year (roughly $20 million), the percentage he paid in taxes (approximately 15%) and the various sources of his vast wealth.

 

   In the midst of our conversation -- for which I had originally allotted no more than ten minutes -- one student asked, "If Romney gets elected, will he be the richest president in American history?"

   "That's a fascinating question," I answered slowly, doing a quick "Google search" in my head. "Although I'm not sure," I answered after a few seconds of silence, "al regel achat (Hebrew for while standing on one foot) I would have to say the answer is 'no'  -- Mitt Romney would not be our wealthiest president.  I think that distinction goes to George Washington, who in addition to being one of the tallest men in the nation (nearly 6'2"), was likely its richest as well."  My answer drew a few skeptical head

            Romney's Home in La Jolla, CA

wags -- about both his height and wealth. I promised the class that I would do some serious research and hopefully have an answer for them by our next class session.

 

 Another student challenged the class with a comment/question: "What does it all mean in the long-run?  Just because the man's super-rich does that mean he can't understand people who aren't?  Are we going to hold his wealth against him?"

   The student was bringing up an intriguing point which, in a time of gross economic disparity, will likely be a major issue lurking just beneath the surface should Governor Romney get the Republican nomination.  

   As a society, our fascination with the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" is somewhere between widespread and universal.  A quick survey of which magazines and tabloids are hawked at virtually every supermarket checkout line in America amply proves the point.  How many people who don't even know the name of the family living across the street can give you line and verse about how much famous people earn . . . or the price of their mansions or the "toys" they play?  We know so much about people we don't truly know as to become inured to real life.  We read or hear so much about other people's wealth that we can actually say of an athlete making $2 million a season that "he's a real bargain."  $2 million a bargain?  That's $38,461.53 a week!

   Sounds pretty outrageous when you break it down by the week -- or the game, at bat or even hour.  Consider the following:

• Kobe Bryant makes $307,853.66 per game -- if he plays all 82 games in a season.
• A-Rod makes $50,000 per at bat -- if he comes to the plate 600 per season.
• Tom Brady earns $825,507.50 per game, 16 games a season.
• In 2011, Lady Gaga earned $1,730,770 a week.
  
• Mitt Romney earns $2,285.00 an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
  

   Don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating anyone making a king's ransom; God bless 'em all I say.  But at the same time, you have to wonder if all that money might not create a wall of separation between some seriously wealthy people and the rest of us who don't have a 7 or 8 figure income.  Yes indeed, there certainly are very wealthy people who never forgot where they came from; who still have a deep and thorough understanding of what it means to be living on the edge.  Take former Representative Alan Grayson who, despite possessing a net worth somewhere north of $30,000,000.00 is one of the wild and woolliest progressives in America.  (Check out the essay on Alan in my book, The Jews of Capitol Hill)  Then there are Senators Frank Lautenberg and Herb Kohl, two multi-multi millionaires who are at the forefront of those arguing for higher taxes for the wealthy and against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

   And then there's Mitt Romney.  The son of former Michigan Governor -- and American Motors CEO -- George Romney, Mitt wasn't exactly born into the middle class.  His father earned, on average, more than $300,000 a year during his peak years.

           Romney's Home in Belmont, MA

As such, Mitt and his 4 siblings were raised first in the upscale Detroit Palmer Woods neighborhood and then the even more tony Bloomfield Hills, where he prepped at the Cranbrook School.  And although Mitt Romney is, without question, a good, decent and charitable man -- he tithes his church -- he acts and sounds like a man who hasn't the slightest idea what it is like to worry over whether one will have enough money to pay the mortgage, health insurance and utility bill, or is barely able to cover the monthly minimum on their credit cards -- despite working two jobs.     

 

   A person who is truly in touch with the challenges of daily life would not say -- even as a joke -- "I should tell my story . . . I'm also unemployed," despite earning 54,795.00 a day off of his investments.  Who in the real world can blithely afford to challenge someone to a $10,000.00 bet -- as he did with Texas Governor Rick Perry?  Then there's Romney's off-the-cuff comment, "I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much." (In this case, the "not very much" amounted to more than $350,000!)

   When a candidate like Mitt Romney -- who in his lifetime has gone from being privileged to richer-than-Croesus -- or Newt Gingrich -- who has gone from lower-middle-class to multimillionaire -- argues for lower taxes for the rich and against, say, collective bargaining rights for union workers, it smacks of being completely out of

           Romney's Home in Wolfboro, NH

 

touch. When a man like President Barack Obama -- the child of a mixed-race broken home -- who earned more than $5 million writing books -- argues in favor of the rich (which now includes him) paying "their fair share," one gets the sense of a person still in touch with real people living real lives, facing real challenges. With economic disparity looming as the subtext for the 2012 presidential election, one can't help but believe that Mitt Romney is going to be at a decided disadvantage.

   Now, as to the question of our wealthiest president: turns out I was correct.  According to a fascinating story published on the acclaimed website 24/7 Wall Street.com George Washington was, far and away, our wealthiest Commander in Chief.  The editors of 24/7 Wall Street estimate that Washington was worth -- in 2010 dollars -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $525 million.  Additionally, he made far, far more than subsequent presidents; his salary was 2% of the total U.S. budget in 1789!  Other truly wealthy chief executives include Thomas Jefferson ($212 million), James Madison ($100 million), Andrew Jackson ($119 million), Theodore Roosevelt ($125 million), Herbert Hoover ($70 million), and Lyndon Johnson ($98 million).  (Those wondering about JFK should know that had he lived, he stood to inherit more than $1 billion from his father.  Such, however, was not to be his fate . . .)

   As a society of voyeurs, we are, without question, addicted to the "lifestyles of the rich and famous." One hopes that when it comes to being a society of citizens and voters, we seek out those who, despite having earned -- or not -- great wealth, still have their fingers on the pulse of real people living real lives, facing real challenges.  

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Keystone Comedy

This past week President Obama and the State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. What a perversely ironic name: "Keystone." For me, a child of Hollywood, that name conjures up images of anarchic Kops who jump up and down, run to and fro, and throw pies with gay abandon; all perfectly predictable, all in the service of that low-brow class of comedy known as "slapstick." If the issues involved in the current Keystone -- the pipeline -- weren't so deadly serious -- energy, ecology and employment -- it too could qualify as slapstick: anarchic, predictable and low-brow.

Except this Keystone isn't a silent flick; it's got a sound-track and special effects and everything.

And it's more of a tragicomedy . . .

For anyone who's been paying close attention to this ongoing tragicomedy, the State Department's rejection should come as no surprise; it is all part of an election-year scenario composed by the Republicans Caucus. From the moment late last month when Boehner & Company attached a provision to the payroll tax extension bill requiring the president to decide on the pipeline permit within 60 days, their intention was as obvious as the plotline of a Keystone Comedy: to hit Barack Obama and the Democrats with an election year pie in the face. Even before Republicans attached the provision, the White House had stated that it would need a minimum of another year in order to evaluate the various potential impacts of the pipelines. (For those not yet aware of what "fracking" -- hydraulic fracturing -- is, check out an article from The Guardian.) What has not been generally reported is that Nebraska and North Dakota -- two states that would be along the proposed pipeline route -- expressed severe reservations about the impact it might have on farmlands and aquifer. As a result, TransCanada -- the firm set to build the pipeline -- went back to the drawing board in order to create a new route. Both the president and the State Department have made it clear that they are willing to revisit this issue in the future, once TransCanada maps out a new route proposal. But to listen to the opposition, the denial is both eternal and unalterable.

Guess again.

From day one, most Republicans -- and a number of Democrats -- proclaimed that approving the Keystone XL was absolutely essential; both for the jobs it would create, and for the energy independence it would guarantee. With the Obama Administration's denial, Republicans can now breathlessly accuse the president of being callously unconcerned about either. "He is," more than one Fox commentator has complained, "anti-oil and anti-Capitalism."

How predictable.

Anti-oil? Anti-Capitalist? Really? In his statement on the decision, the president said his administration is looking at another proposed pipeline in the Midwest. Just last month, his administration made available 21 million acres - an area about the size of South Carolina - of offshore drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico -- not precisely the action of a man or an administration that is "anti-oil." The lease auction attracted more than $337 million in high bids from oil companies.

Moreover, when the State Department issued its original negative report on the proposed Keystone-XL, it was marred by enough controvery and scandal to warrant an investigation by Foggy Bottom's inspector general.( Yes, that's right; the administration was investigating itself!) Last year, a Freedom of Information Act request by environmental groups revealed that a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide was working as a lobbyist for TransCanada, and that Cardno Entrix, a massive contracting firm and TransCanada client, was hired to prepare much of the original environmental assessment.

And the Teeheezels of the right still would have us believe that the administration is anti-oil!

What a predictable script.

In the run-up to Obama's permit denial, the entertainers at Fox, emoting from scripts written by TransCanada, claimed that the proposed $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline would create 12-15,000 jobs. Now that it has been put on hold, that number has magically grown to anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 construction and manufacturing jobs as well as more than 120,000 indirect jobs. So far as I can tell, this is the only jobs program the Republicans have put forth since taking over Congress -- except for cutting taxes and regulations.

Want to talk about jobs?

A recent 40-page study published by the Cornell Global Labor Institute entitled Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada are "unsubstantiated." The folks at Cornell GLI found that "50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside the U.S." Another study concluded that at best, Keystone would create between 2,500 and 6,000 temporary construction positions. It follows that if the number of direct jobs -- and their economic impact -- are far less than TransCanada has claimed, that the number of indirect positions will also be far less.

Another line in the script goes, "The oil carried by the Keystone XL will go a long way towards weaning America off of foreign oil -- something the president obviously could care less about!" Here again, there's a bit of a problem with reality . . . and reportage. It turns out that the United States, for the first time in 62 years, is a net exporter of petroleum products. According to data released in late November of 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and reported by that notorious Socialist rag The Wall Street Journal -- "The U.S. exported 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of 2011, while it imported 689.4 million barrels." As recently as 2005, we imported nearly 900 million more barrels of petroleum than we exported. The last time we were a net exporter of oil, gas cost 26 cents a gallon, the price of a first-class stamp was 3 cents, and a typical house cost $13,500.

This bit of good news has gone largely unreported. The question is why. I suspect it is because the lion's share of oil that would flow through the Keystone XL would be exported overseas . . . which does a lot for corporate profits but precious little for energy independence.

It has been loudly suggested that President Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline as "an election-year gesture of good will to his most ardent supporters on the Left." While it is true that environmentally-conscious Americans are gleeful that at least for now the pipeline and the dangers of fracking have been put on the shelf, not all of the president's "most ardent supporters" are happy. For in putting the Keystone XL on hold, President Obama has earned a ton of enmity from organized labor -- a key group he will need if he is to be reelected. Labor believes that the president's action is short-sighted; that it kills unionized jobs. I don't think anyone's crystal ball is powerful enough to see whether or not jobs produced by the pipeline project would be unionized.

One thing I do know that in denying TransCanada their permit, President Obama has done precisely what the Republicans set him up to do; he has faithfully acted out the script they wrote for him. The president and his advisers are wise enough to know that in denying the Keystone permit, he was setting himself up to have a political pie thrown his way.

The question now is, how good are his reflexes . . . ?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Lies to Live By

The study of history can be both instructive and curious; instructive in how it illuminates the progress of man; curious in that often, the more one learns, the less one understands. Shining a light on the events -- not to mention the personalities and politics -- frequently tarnishes the patina of noble ingenuousness with which said historic ingredients have long been imbued. This is because history -- as instructive and curious as it is -- is also filled with myth, half-truths and outright lies. Or, as Mark Twain would have it, The history of our race, and each individual's experience, is sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie told well is immortal.

History, of course, has its quaint myths: Every Jewish child knows that the "miracle" of Hanukah is a cruse of oil that lasted for eight days. (In fact, the real miracle is that a group of farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and scholars went to war for an idea and
actually defeated a professional army.) It used to be that every American school child knew the story about the young George Washington who, after being confronted by his father about the chopping down of a cherry tree famously proclaimed, "I cannot tell a lie . . ." (This engaging little tale was actually invented by Parson Mason Locke Weems in his biography of the great man, written shortly after his death.)

History can also be numbingly repetitive; when Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson a blank check for war in Vietnam, it was based on a lie ("The Maddox and Turner Joy were fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats!") -- and Johnson knew it; when President George W. Bush beat a mendacious drum for war in Iraq it was based on a lie ("Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"), and he knew it. In so lying, both men were -- perhaps unknowingly -- following in the footsteps of Cato the Elder who purposefully misrepresented the Carthaginian threat to Rome (Carthago delenda est -- "Carthage must be destroyed!"), thus precipitating the Third Punic War. Moreover, Rome's utter destruction of Carthage, gave rise to one of history's most dubious -- yet durable -- claims: that Rome, seeking to ensure that Carthage would never rise again, sowed the fields with salt so that nothing would ever grow there again. (n.b. This is highly dubious; salt was an expensive commodity in the ancient world. The amount needed to permanently destroy the fertility of the soil would have been so enormous that the supposed benefit would not have been worth the financial cost.)

Myths and lies have a long history in American politics. Now, before any of our more conservative readers say, "Oh, he's at it again . . . he's going to go after the Republicans and give the Democrats a free pass . . ." let me assure you that in politics all sides, all parties lie. Federalists, Whigs, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Socialists, Flat-Earthers . . . It goes with the turf. Then again, this is a progressive blog, so if it appears than we're going after one party more than another well, that too goes with the turf . . .

Moving from the realm of Cato, Carthage and conspiracy to the present day, we present several lies currently being promulgated; lies we sincerely hope will not become a part of history:'

• The salvation of the American economy lies in lowering taxes on corporations and the rich, cutting middle-class entitlements, deregulation, extreme deficit reduction and a balanced budget. This mantra, sung by virtually every Republican in America is, to be diplomatic, a gross mistruth. The economic quagmire known as "The Great Recession" was far more the result of the deregulation of banks and tax cuts for the rich than entitlements for the middle-class. And while it is certainly true that deficits and debt do matter -- and must ultimately be addressed in a serious, purposive manner -- clamoring for draconian cuts in the midst of an economic downturn isn't mere fiscal imprudence; it betrays an utter disconnect. For too long, we've heard that placing ever greater wealth in the hands of corporations and the already wealthy will ultimately benefit everyone -- that "a rising tide raises all boats." This, of course, presumes that everyone has a boat . . .
• No one has ever died because they didn't have health care: This maddening mistruth came from the mouth of Republican "flavor-of-the-month" Rick Santorum, during a Q&A session with students at a small Christian college in Iowa this past December 5. A student asked the former Pennsylvania senator about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor. The student said "I don't think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of health care every year," citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University. “Dying?” Santorum answered. "I reject that number completely . . . that people die in America because of lack of health insurance. People die in America because people die in America." Actually, according to the Harvard study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, if you take two Americans who are physically identical – same age, same gender, same race, same weight, same smoking history – and one of them has health insurance and one does not, then the one without health insurance is 40% more likely to die each year.
• States need to pass laws to ensure against voter fraud: Of late, an increasing number of states -- all of which have Republican governors and Republican-majority legislatures -- have been introducing and passing legislation cutting back on early voting, changing rules for presenting absentee ballots and requiring voters to present state-issued i.ds in order to vote. Their argument is that all of these moves are necessary in order to "protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters." And yet, according to a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that instances of voter fraud in America are extraordinarily, unbelievably rare. Ohio, as an example, has documented four instances of voter fraud (out of more than 9 million ballots cast) in the last two presidential election cycles. Kansas, where the secretary of state pressed the legislature to pass a draconian i.d. law, admitted that his office could only document 221 cases of voter fraud since 1997. The real purpose behind all this is to make it far more difficult for certain groups -- students, ethnic minorities and the elderly -- to vote. Not surprisingly, all three of these groups have a greater tendency to vote Democratic than Republican. This is a naked attempt on the part of Republicans to create a "cure" for a problem that does not exist. One has a greater chance of being hit by lightening or winning the lottery than engaging in an act of voter fraud.

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list of "lies to live by." We could easily have included such canards as "President Obama wants to turn America into a European Social Welfare state," or "The mainstream media is run by liberals for liberals," or "Corporations are people," or "There is no such thing as man-made global warming," or "Ronald Reagan never raised taxes . . ."

The truth of the matter is that from Cato to Cantor, and from Maccabees to McConnell, lies abound.

Which makes history both instructive . . . and curious.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone